- (1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated August 23, 1999, in complaint (ULP) No. 555 of 1993. The complainant was filed by the Kamgar sabha against the establishment. Respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of stable. The said partnership firm is the licensee of Unit No. 17 belonging to Aarey Milk Colony. Respondent No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant that respondents own 130 buffalos in the said Unit No. 17 belonging to aarey Milk Colony and had employed 13 workmen to carry out the day to day work, such as cleaning, milking, etc. The workers came together and formed petitioner Union some time in 1992. As the workers came together and formed union, obviously there was resistance from the respondents. The differences between the workmen and the establishment with the filing of complaint by the petitioner bearing Compliant (ULP) No. 181 of 1993 complaining of unfair labour practice against the respondents under Item 1 (a) of Schedule II and item 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 171. In the said complaint, application for interim relief was made and upon considering the materials on record, the Court granted ad interim relief which reads thus: "5. In the circumstances mentioned above, the complainant prays: a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the complaint, the respondents, their agents, and servants be restrained by an order of injunction or any other appropriate order or direction of this Hon'ble court from: i) Discharging, dismissing or otherwise in any terminating the services of the workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A to the complaint without following due process of law. ii) Coercing, intimidating, threatening or otherwise in a way forcing the workmen to resign from the complainant Unit. iii) Coercing, intimidating, forcing, threatening the workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A to the complaint to vacate the residential quarters or otherwise in any way throwing the workmen out of their residential quarters where they presently reside. "
(2.) THE said complaint was eventually decided in favour of the petitioner on 28th June, 1999. The operative part of the order passed in favour of the petitioner read thus: " (1) Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 1993 filed by the Complainant Union is hereby allowed. (2) It is hereby declared that the respondents have committed unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a) of Sch. II and under Item 9 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and hence the respondents are hereby directed to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practices. (3 The respondents are hereby further directed to pay to the present workmen at least minimum bonus for the financial year 1991-92 under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act and also to pay wages to the said workmen not less than the wages applicable under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act as applicable to the employees employed in the Stable Industry. (4) No order as to costs. (5) Complaint stands firmly disposed of. "
(3.) IN the interregnum, however, the respondents filed complaint, being compliant (ULP) No. 488 of 1993 against the petitioner Union alleging that the workmen have resorted to an illegal strike with effect from 14th April, 1993. In that complaint, ad interim order was passed on April 15, 1993, on the following terms: "3. The respondents 1 to 3 to this complaint their agents, and members, volunteers, hirelings as well as all the workmen Annexure 'a' to the complaint are'by an order and injunction (of) Hon'ble Court hereby desisted and refrained from: (a) Holding violent demonstrations or picketing within a radius (of) 200 (two hundred) meters from the compound of any of the complaint at unit No. 17, Aarey Colony, Goregaon (E), Bombay 400 065. (b) Entering into or about or remaining in or within any of the complainant's Establishments at Unit No. 17 during strike w. e. f. 14-4-1993 or lockout desired, except for the legitimate lawful purpose of carrying out their respective duties if and to them in the complainant's establishment and all other land work if assigned in connection with the business of the complaint. (c) Preventing or obstructing the complainant's other willing, co-operative and loyal employees, managers, proprietors, partners and visitors and other persons lawfully having ingress into or egress from the complainant's Establishment. " What is relevant to note is that the complaint as filed by the respondents was, however, dismissed for non-prosecution on 6th August, 1998 and that order has become final. The case of the petitioner in the present complaint, being complaint (ULP) No. 555 of 1993, is that the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 28 read with Item No. 6 of Schedule II and Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. The background in which the said complaint has been filed can be culled out from the affidavit filed by the petitioner by way of evidence in the said complaint. Paragraph 7 to 10 of the said affidavit reads thus: "7) I say that in the said Complaint (ULP) No. 488 of 1993, the respondents had obtained an ex parte ad interim relief restraining my union and the employees from staging any demonstration etc. I say that after obtaining the said interim relief in the said Complaint (ULP) No. 488 of 1993, on 16th April, 1993 at about 3. 30 p. m. the respondents with active assistance of the Chief Executive Officer of the Aarey Milk Colony, the security staff of the Aarey Milk Colony and some constables and officers of Aarey Police Station physically removed all the workmen from the residential quarters with their family and children and also threw out all their belongings and locked their residential quarters. The respondents have done this inspite of the restraining order of the Honourable Industrial Court, Shri A. D. Deshpande, in Complaint (ULP) No. 181 of 1993. I say that the provisions of the residential quarters is a condition of service of the employees and accordingly all of them were provided the residential quarters. I say that by throwing the employees out of the residential quarters, the respondents have engaged in the unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and pulp Act, 1971. 8) I say that the respondents did not give any notice as required before effecting the lock out from 1. 30 p. m. on 14th April, 1993. I, therefore, say that the lockout effected by the respondents from 1. 30 p. m. on 14th April, 1993 amounts to unfair labour practices under Item 6 of schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 9) I say that by an order passed on 13-5-93 below Exhibit U-2 this Honourable court was pleased to direct the respondents to allow all the workmen to stay in their residential quarters. The Honourable Court was also pleased to direct the Investigating Officer to break open to lock of the residential quarters of the employees and allow them to enter and stay in the said residential quarters in case the respondents fail to obey the orders of the Honourable Court. I sav that on 13th May 1993 the investigating Officer of this Honourable Court Shri Padarkar had gone to the site and in the presence of the Investigating Officer, the respondents opened the lock of the residential quarters of the employees and allowed them to enter and stay in the residential quarters. I, however, say that the respondents have not lifted the lockout and all the employees are under illegal lockout till today. I say that in their written statement the respondents alleged that they have effected a partial lockout w. e. f. 11th May, 1993. I say that the said notice of partial lockout dated 11th May, 1993 is an eye wash. I say that even the said notice of partial lockout dated 11th May, 1993 is illegal as no notice as required under section 24 (2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 was given. I say that the respondents allegation in the written statement that the workmen are on illegal strike from 1. 30 p. m. on 14-4-93 is false. I say that the respondents had effected a lockout of the employees from 1. 30 p. m. on 14-4-93. 10) I say that the illegal lockout effected by the respondents from 1. 30 p. m. on 14-4-93 still continues. I, therefore, say that this Honourable Court be leased to direct the respondents to lift the lockout and allow all the workmen whose names are appearing in Annexure A to the complaint to resume work and provide them their original work and also to pay them full wages from 1. 30 p. m. on 14th April, 1993 till they are allowed to resume work. I further pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the employees of their residential quarters. ";